The Muslim Art of Vilification

One of our email correspondences has caught the attention of Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
(MENJ), the founder of the Muslim website Bismikaallahuma. Lazarus, a member of our
correspondence team, had responded to an email which contained the claim / question whether
the large number of women who convert to Islam is not proof enough that Islam is friendly
to women. In order to fully understand the original argument and the answer given, one
should read the exchange itself.

Apart from displaying his high level of scholarship by the use of insults like "demented
bigots", MENJ accuses
Lazarus of deceit and distortion for not quoting the entirety of a specific narration that
contains a claim that women, much like dogs and donkeys, nullify the prayers of a Muslim.
It seems that MENJ is one of those Muslims who have a hard time discussing any issue in
a calm and factual way, but who constantly seek to emotionalize the debate and vilify those
whom they disagree with, charging them not only with error but also with evil motivations.

After dealing quickly with MENJs absolutely misguided attack, we will take the
occasion to discuss in detail the matter raised by him in his article, i.e. we will give
an overview of the teachings found in the hadith in regard to nullification of prayers by
women.

MENJ's polemical smokescreen

MENJ makes these accusations:

However, what we are concerned with here is the blatant
twisting of one particular hadith by the Christian missionary. In an attempt to
"show" that there is little difference in treatment of a dog and a woman in
Islam, the missionary stated as follows:

Please explain exactly what facts we have twisted by quoting Muhammad's wife Ayesha[sic]
who said:

----, I hope that you can see that we are not here to mislead or to deceive but
rather because we love the truth and desire for Muslims to find and to know this truth.

It is interesting to note here that the missionary have[sic] purposely not
reproduced the whole hadith from Bukhari which he had referenced. The following is the
actual full citation of the hadith partially quoted by the missionary:

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is
annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying
people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet
praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in
need of something, I would slip away for I disliked to face him."

Does it require too much intelligence to
understand this hadith? There was a discussion between `Aishah, the wife of the Prophet

(P),
with some Muslims who were not knowledgeable about religious maters on the issue of what
would nullify the salat (the Islamic ritual prayer). She told them that she was
knowledgeable about such rules. They remarked that when a woman or a dog, or a donkey
passed in front of a praying person, the latter's prayer was nullified. She corrected
their wrong understanding with sarcasm (by saying that they are equating woman with dogs)
and said that when the Prophet(P) prayed his tahajjud (midnight voluntary prayers) in her
room, her bed (where she lay) was right in front of him. Hence, those Muslims were wrong
in their understanding of the rules of nullification of salat: a salat is
not nullified if a woman is in front of a praying person.

RESPONSE:

MENJ conveniently forgot to inform his readers that Lazarus wasnt the one who
claimed that women nullify prayers, the Muslim emailer did! The Muslim who sent in his
email was addressing one of the entries in our Index to Islam where it was allegedly
stated that women were equal to dogs. It was this accusation which prompted Lazarus to
respond. Since there are a couple of misunderstandings intertwined, i.e. that the Muslim
inquirer did not understand our statement in the Index entry, and MENJ did not understand
Lazarus response — maybe because he was in such a hurry to accuse us of evil
intentions — we have to untangle the mess of misunderstandings step by step. Our
Index entry on WOMEN has an alphabetical list of
key words, one of them being this subpoint:

equal to dogs and donkeys?

* Narrated 'Aisha: Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to
lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to
consider it not good to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away
slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt.
(Sahih
Bukhari 1.486, cf.
Sahih
Bukhari 1.490,
Sahih
Bukhari 1.493,
Sahih
Bukhari 1.498)

The first absolutely crucial observation is this: There is a question mark at the end
of the statement, "equal to dogs and donkeys?" This entry does NOT make the
claim that women are equal to dogs and donkeys. It simply reports that in the Muslim
traditions there is an argument whether women are equal to dogs and donkeys. The hadith
that we provided as documentation is quoted in full, not leaving out even one letter of
it. Everyone can verify that very easily by simply clicking on the first link provided in
the references leading to the Muslim hadith database from which this text was copied.

We have no need to distort. Usually our claims are meticulously documented with
references, so that everyone can verify our statements. Sure, we are humans and occasionally
we make errors, but this is not one of them. The above quoted section of the Index entry
on women is absolutely accurate.

Second step: The Muslim inquirer wrote regarding this entry:

I find some of your references right down misleading. For example, if you go to
the index of Islam and look up women, you find the entry labeled "equal to women and
dogs. The only reason the wife of the prophet(RA) was on the floor because he was praying
facing the middle of the bed and no muslim (man or woman) Is allowed to be in front of
any other muslim (man or woman) praying

Lazarus responded:

Please explain exactly what facts we have twisted by quoting Muhammad's wife Ayesha who
said:

----, I hope that you can see that we are not here to mislead or to deceive but rather
because we love the truth and desire for Muslims to find and to know this truth.

This is a piece of genuine correspondence. The Muslim made a claim that we had
represented something in a misleading way. Lazarus simply asked him to clarify his
accusation. He did not make any claim of his own. In particular, Lazarus did not claim
that Islam teaches that women are equal to dogs. He simply asked the Muslim in what way
we distorted or what facts have we twisted by QUOTING a statement of one of Muhammads
wives. Asking this question, he wanted to achieve two goals: First, he wanted to understand
why this Muslim thought that a mere quotation of a Muslim tradition — without any
interpretation of our own — amounts to twisting or distorting or deceiving. Second,
being convinced that there is no distortion in this case, he simply asked him to explain
what exactly was distorted. If this Muslim were serious in his dialog, he would then be
forced to look up the tradition and would certainly realize that we did nothing but accurately
quote it, thus discovering that his charge of misleading the readers was without substance.
Again, this is a piece of email correspondence and not an article about the topic of
"women and dogs". So there was no necessity to give a detailed discussion
on our interpretation of this hadith.

The first duty of a diligent researcher is to study the original context of a statement.
Since the inquirer referred to an entry in our Index to Islam,
MENJ should have read carefully not only the email correspondence that he reacted to but
also the mentioned Index entry in order to understand where the discussion originated. It
is obvious that MENJ failed to carefully examine the texts before he exploded in his rage.

To summarize: Our Index entry was absolutely correct in reporting that there was an
argument about this question in the Muslim sources. Moreover, Lazarus did not make any
claims of his own but simply requested that the Muslim please explain why he thought we
had distorted anything.

Now it is our turn to ask MENJ: What exactly is so reprehensible about that? What
evidence does MENJ have to accuse us of a "plethora of wild imagination and false
interpretations" and "the blatant twisting of one particular hadith"
and even say:

The fact that he had to offer a distorted interpretation of hadith #490
(when this and other ahadith 491-7 plainly contradicted him) by equating women with
dogs certainly speaks for itself. One has to be intellectually dishonest or
have a diminutive lack of comprehension to assert from the hadith #490 that
a woman is as impure as a dog and a donkey!

The missionary "Lazarus" failed miserably in convincing anyone
other than equally-demented bigots. it remains to be seen what his next
excuse for this purposeful twist will be to conceal his bigotry and extreme
hatred of Islam.

(bold emphasis ours)

Since neither the Index entry nor Lazarus gave an interpretation of the quoted hadith,
how can those non-existent interpretations be false or distorted? What does MENJ refer to
when he accuses Lazarus of "wild imaginations" and "blatant twisting"?
What exactly was "intellectually dishonest" in asking the Muslim correspondent
the question to substantiate his accusation?

Moreover, since both the Index entry and the email by Lazarus contained this line of
references, (Sahih Bukhari 1.486, cf. Sahih Bukhari 1.490, Sahih Bukhari 1.493, Sahih
Bukhari 1.498), it is clear that the quotation was taken from hadith number 486. The
readers were simply given the hint that it would be good to compare (cf.) this hadith also
with the tradition numbers 490, 493 and 498. How did Lazarus assert anything "from
the hadith #490" when he only quoted from #486, let alone "assert from the
hadith #490 that a woman is as impure as a dog and a donkey!" when he did not make
any assertion about any of these hadiths beyond quoting a part of it?

Seeing MENJ making all those incredible charges that have absolutely no basis in the
article that he attacks, it is quite amusing to find also this formulation in MENJs
diatribe, that "one has to be intellectually dishonest or have a diminutive lack of
comprehension" to do all these horrible things. Apart from the fact that "a
diminutive lack of comprehension" is a self-defeating expression (MENJ probably
wanted to say an enormous lack of comprehension, not a diminutive one), it rather seems to
be MENJ who suffers from a lack of comprehension, and certainly not a diminutive one.

We will not accuse MENJ of purposefully misrepresenting Lazarus statement, but
one can hardly avoid the impression that it may have been his "extreme hatred
of" Christians that so utterly blinded him that he could not see nor comprehend what
was actually said, and what was not said.

Now that we have seen that all of the accusations of MENJ have collapsed and evaporated
into absolute nothingness — that they were smokescreens without any substance —,
let us turn to an examination of what the Islamic sources say about MENJs topic of
choice, i.e. the impact of women on a Muslims prayer.

Can women nullify a Muslim's prayer?

As already indicated above, MENJ conveniently forgot to inform his readers that Lazarus
wasnt the one who claimed that women nullify prayers, the Muslim email correspondent
did! Read again what this Muslim wrote:

I find some of your references right down misleading. For example, if you go to
the index of Islam and look up women, you find the entry labeled "equal to women and
dogs. The only reason the wife of the prophet(RA) was on the floor because he was praying
facing the middle of the bed and no muslim (man or woman) Is allowed to be in front of
any other muslim (man or woman) praying

Please notice that this person agrees that women, as well as men, nullify prayers and
tries to reconcile that with the narrations that say Muhammad prayed with Aisha before
him. Lazarus was simply responding to this person by asking him to explain in what way did
we distort Bukharis hadiths which do not mention men but do single out women, dogs
and donkeys as objects that nullify prayers. MENJ thinks he has the answer and can explain
in what way we distorted the statements from the hadith. We will be examining his answer
here to see if he has successfully achieved his goal.

More importantly, had MENJ spent only a little time searching the site regarding
the keywords of women, dogs and prayer, he would have discovered our
response to Dr. Jamal Badawi where we had
quoted the following narrations:

Abu Dharr reported: THE MESSENGER OF 'ALLAH (may peace be upon him) SAID: When
any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the
saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of
the saddle, HIS PRAYER WOULD BE CUT OFF BY (passing of an) ASS, WOMAN, AND BLACK DOG.
I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the
red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.
(Sahih Muslim, Book 004,
Number 1032)

Abu Huraira reported: THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (may peace be upon him) SAID: A WOMAN,
AN ASS AND A DOG DISRUPT THE PRAYER, but something like the back of a saddle guards
against that. (Sahih Muslim, Book 004,
Number 1034)

'Urwa b. Zubair reported: 'A'isha asked: What disrupts the prayer? We said: THE
WOMAN AND THE ASS. Upon this she remarked: IS THE WOMAN AN UGLY ANIMAL? I lay
in front of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) like the bier of a corpse and
he said prayer. (Sahih Muslim, Book 004,
Number 1037)

Interestingly, Urwa ibn Zubair was Aishas nephew!

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
Qatadah said: I heard Jabir ibn Zayd who reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas;
and Shu'bah reported the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: A menstruating woman
and a dog cut off the prayer. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 2,
Number 0703)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, A DOG, AN ASS, A PIG,
A JEW, A MAGIAN, AND A WOMAN CUT OFF HIS PRAYER, but it will suffice if they pass in
front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 2,
Number 0704)

In this same article I even said the following right after citing the Bukhari hadith
commented on by Lazarus, and right before I cited the above narrations:

There are some Muslims who try to say that these hadiths which place women on the level
of dogs and asses were not narrated from Muhammad, and therefore do not represent the view
of Muhammad. It simply reflects the views of certain Muslims of that time. The following
traditions clearly demonstrate that these Muslims were actually deriving their opinions
from Muhammad himself:

Taking MENJs criticism for granted we must conclude that Ibn Abbas, Abu Dharr,
Abu Huraira and Urwa b. Zubair "were not knowledgeable about religious matters on the
issue of what would nullify the salat (the Islamic ritual prayer)" and that
"these Muslims were wrong in their understanding of the rules of nullification of salat."
But since MENJ cites Ibn Taymiyya who hailed Ibn Abbas as a great scholar of Islam and who
also said that the companions should be consulted in order to understand the Quran:

When you do not get any help from the Qur'ân or the
Sunnah, turn to the words of the companions. For they know the Qur'ân better: they
have witnessed its revelation, and passed through the situations in which it was revealed:
and know it and understand it fully. This is particularly true of the scholars and
leaders such as the Four Righteous Caliphs and `Abdullâh ibn Mas`ûd. Imâm Abu Ja`afar
Muhammad ibn Jarîr al-Tabarî reports: Abu Kûrayb narrated to us, saying: Jâbir ibn
Nûh informed us that: al-A`mash informed us from Abu Dûhâ: from Masrûq that `Abdullâh
ibn Mas`û d said: "By the one besides whom there none having the right to be
worshipped, there is no verse in the Qur'ân about which I do not know in whose case and
at what place was it revealed. If I were aware that anyone knew the Qur'ân more than me,
and I could reach him, I would certainly have gone to see him."

[4] Al-A`mash has also reported through Abu Wâ`il that Ibn Mas`ûd said: "When
anyone of us learned ten verses of the Qur'ân, he did not proceed further unless he had
known what they meant and what action they demanded."

Another great scholar is `Abdullâh ibn `Abbas

(R), the nephew of the Prophet(P) and the commentator of
the Qur'ân. He attained that stature in virtue of the Prophets prayer: "O
Allâh! Give him knowledge of Islam and teach him the meaning of the Qur'ân."[5]Muhammad ibn Bashshâr narrated to us, that Wakî` informed us,
that Sufyân informed us from al-A`mash: from Musim (ibn Sabîh Abî Duhâ) from Masrûq:
that `Abdullâh ibn Mas`ûd(R) said: "What a good interpreter of the Qur'ân Ibn `Abbas
is!" Ibn Jarîr has also reported this hadîth through Yahya ibn Dawûd, from Ishâq
al-Azrâq, from Sufyân, from al-A`mash, from Muslim ibn Sabîh Abî Duhâ, from al-Masruq
with slightly different words: "What a good interpreter Ibn `Abbas is of the
Qur'ân!" He has also reported the same words through Bundar, from Ja`far ibn `Awn
from al-A`mash. These words are, therefore, the actual words of Ibn Mas`ûd(R) which he said
about Ibn `Abbas(R). Ibn Mas`ûd(R) died, most probably, in 33 A.H. Ibn `Abbas(R) lived for thirty six
years after him, and added a lot to the treasury of Islâmic knowledge.
(Source;
bold emphasis ours)

This means that Aisha must be at fault and is the one in error. We will have more to
say about this point a little later.

MENJ proceeds to quote certain narrations that show Muhammad praying while Aisha slept
in front of him and then concludes:

We wonder why this simple issue was so hard for the
missionary "Lazarus" to understand. The fact that he had to offer a distorted
interpretation of hadith #490 (when this and other ahadith 491-7 plainly contradicted him)
by equating women with dogs certainly speaks for itself. One has to be intellectually
dishonest or have a diminutive lack of comprehension to assert from the hadith #490
that a woman is as impure as a dog and a donkey!

Like Sahih Al-Bukhari, both Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud also contain a number of
traditions attributed to Aisha complaining that women were being placed on the same level
of dogs and donkeys. They, too, narrate the same thing that Muhammad prayed while Aisha
was in front of him. What are we to make of this? Obviously, the Hadith literature
contains two very contradictory views regarding whether or not women nullify a
persons prayers.

This isnt the only instance where Aisha contradicts the position or statements of
other Muslim companions of Muhammad. Here is another example:

Narrated Masruq:
I said to 'Aisha, "O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?" Aisha said,
"What you have said makes my hair stand on end! Know that if somebody tells you one
of the following three things, he is a liar: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord,
is a liar." Then Aisha recited the Verse:

'No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous
Well-Acquainted with all things.' (6.103) 'It is not fitting for a human being that Allah
should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.' (42.51) 'Aisha further
said, "And whoever tells you that the Prophet knows what is going to happen tomorrow,
is a liar." She then recited:

'No soul can know what it will earn tomorrow.' (31.34) She added: "And whoever
tells you that he concealed (some of Allah's orders), is a liar." Then she recited:
'O Apostle! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord '
(5.67) 'Aisha added. "But the Prophet saw Gabriel in his true form twice."
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60,
Number 378)

Narrated Masruq:
'Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar,
for Allah says: 'No vision can grasp Him.' (6.103) And if anyone tells you that Muhammad
has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for Allah says: None has the knowledge of the
Unseen but Allah." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93,
Number 477)

Aisha explicitly denies the claim that Muhammad had seen Allah in any shape or form
(this is the implication of the Quranic citation which states that no vision can grasp
Allah). Aishas position contradicts the opinion of Ibn Abbas and a few others:

Chapter 78: THE MEANING OF THE WORDS OF ALLAH:" HE SAW HIM IN ANOTHER
DESCENT" (AL-QUR'AN, LIII. 13). DID THE APOSTLE (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM) SEE HIS LORD
ON THE NIGHT OF HIS JOURNEY (TO HEAVEN)?

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that he (the Holy Prophet) saw (Allah)
with, his heart. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001,
Number 0334)

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the words: "The heart belied not
what he saw" (al-Qur'an, Iiii. 11) and "Certainly he saw Him in another
descent" (al-Qur'an, Iiii. 13) imply that he saw him twice with his heart. (Sahih
Muslim, Book 001,
Number 0335)

Narrated AbdurRahman ibn A'ish
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious
in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah
contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between
my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the
Heavens and the Earth. He recited: `Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens
and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)
Darimi reported it in a mursal form and Tirmidhi also reported. (Tirmidhi Hadith,
Number 237 ALIM CD-ROM Version)

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) was detained one morning from observing the dawn
prayer (in congregation) along with us till the sun had almost appeared on the horizon. He
then came out hurriedly and Iqamah for prayer was observed and he conducted it (prayer) in
brief form. When he had concluded the prayer by saying As-salamu alaykum wa Rahmatullah,
he called out to us saying: Remain in your places as you were. Then turning to us he said:
I am going to tell you what detained me from you (on account of which I could not join you
in the prayer) in the morning. I got up in the night and performed ablution and observed
the prayer as had been ordained for me. I dozed in my prayer till I was overcome by
(sleep) and lo, I found myself in the presence of my Lord, the Blessed and the
Glorious, IN THE BEST FORM. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He
said: What these highest angels contend about? I said: I do not know. He repeated it
thrice. He said: Then I saw Him put HIS PALMS between my shoulder blades till I felt
the coldness of HIS FINGERS between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was
illuminated for me and I could recognize everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy
service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to
expiations. He said: What are these? I said: Going on foot to join congregational prayers,
sitting in the mosques after the prayers, performing ablution well despite difficulties.
He again said: Then what do they contend? I said: In regard to the ranks. He said: What
are these? I said: Providing of food, speaking gently, observing the prayer when the
people are asleep. He again said to me: Beg (Your Lord) and say: O Allah, I beg of Thee
(power) to do good deeds, and abandon abominable deeds, to love the poor, that Thou
forgive me and show mercy to me and when Thou intendst to put people to trial Thou causes
me to die unblemished and I beg of Thee Thy love and the love of one who loves Thee and
the love for the deed which brings me near to Thy love. Allah's Messenger (peace be upon
him) said: It is a truth, so learn it and teach it.
Transmitted by Ahmad, Tirmidhi who said: This is a hasan sahih hadith and I asked
Muhammad ibn Isma'il about this hadith and he said: It is a sahih hadith. (Tirmidhi
Hadith, Number 245 ALIM CD-ROM Version)

Still other narrations suggest that he may have or may have not seen his lord,
depending on how one interprets them:

Chapter 79: PERTAINING TO HIS (PROPHET'S) WORDS: HE IS A LIGHT; HOW COULD I SEE HIM?
-AND HIS WORDS: I SAW THE LIGHT

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him): Did you see thy Lord? He said: He is a Light. How could I see Him?
(Sahih Muslim, Book 001,
Number 0341)

Abdullah b. Shaqiq reported: I said to Abu Dharr: Had I seen the Messenger of Allah, I
would have asked him. He (Abu Dharr) said: What is that thing that you wanted to inquire
of him? He said: I wanted to ask him whether he had seen his Lord. Abu Dharr said: I, in
fact, inquired of him, and he replied: I saw Light. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001,
Number 0342)

The above narrations do not necessarily imply that Muhammad didnt see Allah. They
may be stating that when Muhammad supposedly saw him he could only see his light, or saw
Allah manifest as light. In either case, these narrations contradict the ones from
at-Tirmidhi which say that Allah allegedly appeared in a visible manner.{1}

Here is another instance where Aisha was in conflict with others, in this case with the
rest of Muhammads wives, regarding a specific issue:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that he was asked about the suckling of
an older person. He said, ''Urwa ibn az-Zubayr informed me that Abu Hudhayfa ibn Utba ibn
Rabia, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, who was present at Badr, adopted Salim (who is called Salim, the mawla of Abu
Hudhayfa) as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, adopted Zayd
ibn Haritha. He thought of him as his son, and Abu Hudhayfa married him to his brother's
sister, Fatima bint al-Walid ibn Utba ibn Rabia, who was at that time among the first
emigrants. She was one of the best unmarried women of the Quraysh. When Allah the Exalted
sent down in His Book what He sent down about Zayd ibn Haritha, 'Call them after their
true fathers. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah. If you do not know who their
fathers were then they are your brothers in the deen and your mawali,' (Sura 33 ayat 5)
people in this position were traced back to their fathers. When the father was not known,
they were traced to their mawla.

"Sahla bint Suhayl who was the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, and one of the tribe of Amr
ibn Luayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and
said, 'Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me while I am
uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?' The Messenger
of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Give him five drinks of your
milk and he will be mahram by it.' She then saw him as a foster son. A'isha umm
al-muminin took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see
her. She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her
brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The
rest of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, refused to let
anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, 'No! By Allah! We think that what the
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to
do was only an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No! By Allah! No one will
come in upon us by such nursing!'

"This is what the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,
thought about the suckling of an older person." (Maliks Muwatta, Book 30,
Number 30.2.12)

For a detailed discussion on the issue of nursing adults,
see this article.

The purpose for quoting these contradictory narrations is to show that Muhammads
companions and even his wives disagreed and contradicted one another.

With the foregoing in mind, for MENJ to cite specific narrations from Aisha where she
denies that Muhammad stated that women nullify a persons prayers, placing them on
the level of dogs, donkeys etc., or that he used to pray while she was asleep in front of
him, hardly prove anything.

Since the alleged sound narrations of Islam contradict each other regarding the point
of women nullifying prayers, MENJ must choose from the following options:

Aisha lied in order to save women from embarrassment. (Note that Aisha is apparently
the only one of Muhammad's many wives who reports about Muhammad praying facing her bed
while she is in it.)

Men such as Ibn Abbas, Abu Dharr, Abu Huraira etc., lied and put words in
Muhammads mouth in order to degrade not just women, but Jews and Magians as well.

Both groups lied. One group forged narrations to make women look bad with Aisha
responding in kind and forging hadiths to refute them.

Despite some of the narrations being found in collections deemed authentic by Sunni
Muslims, these hadiths are nothing more than forgeries since Muhammads companions
and wife never said such things.

Perhaps only one set of narrations is forged while the other set is sound, despite them
both appearing in collections deemed authentic by Sunnis. The question then arises, who
decides which of these so-called sound narrations are truly authentic and which are the
forgeries?

Muhammad was being inconsistent since he said one thing in front of his followers but
did the opposite in the privacy of his home in the presence of his favorite wife Aisha.
This wouldnt be the first time that Muhammad failed to do the very thing he
commanded others, see this article.
(Again, that Muhammad prayed (prostrated) in front of the bed of a wife is reported
only by Aisha, not by the other wives, so he may have done so only with Aisha,
if it is true at all, see option 1.)

Assuming that all narrations are true and Muhammad was consistent,
one could attempt to harmonize the traditions in one of the following ways:

Muhammads point regarding women nullifying prayers may be referring to
congregational prayers, or to prayers performed outside or in the mosque. It does not
apply to private prayers performed at home.

One of the above quoted narrations explicitly refers to "menstruating women"
and may suggest that this is what Muhammad had in mind, i.e. that praying before
a menstruating woman nullifies the prayer. Muhammad may have prayed before Aisha
only when she was not menstruating. That would resolve the contradiction in a somewhat
contrived way since it is arguing from silence and an attempt of harmonizing one aspect
in those narrations that are contradictory in many ways. There is a similar issue with
the question whether it is dogs in general or only black dogs that are the problem.
Some hadith say a dog (without further qualifying what kind of dog, i.e. it would refer
to all dogs), others insist that it is only a black dog that nullifies the prayers.
Moreover, we doubt that MENJ would be really happy with this solution since the implication
would then be that although women are not always on the same level with dogs and donkeys,
they would still be equated with them during their periods, i.e. for 5-8 days of every
month, or roughly 20% of the time.

Aisha’s statement, "I lay in front of the Messenger of Allah like the bier
of a corpse and he said prayer" (Sahih Muslim, Book 4, #1037), allows another
way of harmonizing some of the conflicting traditions: A woman only nullifies the prayer
when she moves, but not when she lies motionless like a corpse.
After all, the translator of Sahih Al-Bukhari added this parenthetical explanation to
his translation of hadith #490: ... "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman
(if they pass in front of the praying people)." This also suggests that Aisha
would have annulled Muhammad’s prayer if she had moved. This harmonization would
still leave us with the conclusion that women, just like dogs and donkeys, nullify
the prayers of a Muslim unless these creatures remain absolutely motionless. (However,
this scenario would still conflict with some of the other narrations.)

Most of Aisha’s hadiths refer to the night time (sleeping, lying in bed),
one of them even stating explicitly that it was dark in the house since there were no lamps
(Bukhari 1.492). Maybe the issue is visibility. If a Muslim
can see the woman in front of him, it nullifies his prayer, but if it is so dark that
he cannot see her, then it is permitted.

Whatever option MENJ chooses, this one fact remains. There are narrations attributed to
men such as Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira on the authority of Muhammad which explicitly state
that women, much like dogs and donkeys, nullify ones prayers. Some of these hadiths
are even found in Sahih Muslim, deemed the second most authentic and authoritative collection
of narrations by Sunni Muslims.

MENJ championed a number of hadiths narrated by Aisha. Leaving aside all those other
hadiths narrated by other people that contradict the ones chosen by MENJ, we have to ask
how credible these hadiths are. Should not at least those hadiths originating with one
person reporting about her own experience be consistent? The problem for MENJ's case
is not only that Aisha contradicts Ibn Abbas, Abu Dharr, Abu Huraira but the narrations
attributed to her also contradict each other.

Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet used to pray while I was sleeping across in his bed in front of him.
Whenever he wanted to pray Witr, he would wake me up and I would pray Witr.
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 9,
Number 491)

Narrated 'Aisha:
the wife of the Prophet, "I used to sleep in front of Allah's Apostle with my legs opposite
his Qibla (facing him); and whenever he prostrated, he pushed my feet and I withdrew
them and whenever he stood, I stretched them." 'Aisha added, "In those days
there were no lamps in the houses." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 9,
Number 492)

'Urwa b. Zubair reported: 'A'isha asked: What disrupts the prayer? We said:
The woman and the ass. Upon this she remarked: Is the woman an ugly animal?
I lay in front of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)
like the bier of a corpse and he said prayer. (Sahih Muslim, Book 4,
Number 1037)

The contradictions are obvious: Did Aisha get up and pray with Muhammad (Bukhari 1.491),
or did she stay in bed while Muhammad prayed alone (Bukhari 1.492, Muslim 1037)? If she stayed
in bed, did she constantly withdraw and stretch her legs (Bukhari 1.492) or did she lie there
stiff like a corpse (Muslim 1037)? As the number of discrepancies in Aisha’s story increases
they also raise the probability for the first option in the above list
to be true. And it is not over yet; there is still another version: Did she get up after all,
but then simply slipped away without participating in the prayer as claimed in the following
narration:

Narrated 'Aisha:
Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys? While I used to lie in my bed,
the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it not good
to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from
the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 9,
Number 486)

Given the many contradictions in Aisha’s statements on this issue, how credible
is her story at all? Although some differences can be found also between the other narrators,
these three people are a lot more consistent among themselves than Aisha alone. Interestingly,
the last hadith quoted, Bukhari 1.486, has Aisha saying that although Muhammad prayed in front
of the bed in which Aisha was lying, she considered this to be guilt for her, and then left
the bed to get "out of her guilt". Does this not indicate that even in Aisha’s mind,
something was not right with her lying in front of Muhammad during his prayers? Could that
be the reason that MENJ lists several other hadiths by Aisha (#490, 491, 492, 494, and
summarily refers to "other ahadith 491-7") but completely ignores #486, the one we had
originally quoted?

In any case, MENJ has quite a task before him, if he wants to sort out this mess.

Finishing off with a logical fallacy ...

After citing specific sources which agree with his belief that Islam elevates women,
MENJ concludes with the following attack:

These testimonies of well-known historians and Orientalists
reveal that the discoveries
of Western research in this field have not yet become common knowledge, and especially to
the likes of "Lazarus". He who likes to pick and choose parts of the hadith or
the Qur'an to conform to his views, without looking into the context, can make a totally
opposite case of the very intention for which such statements were made. The missionary
"Lazarus" tried to do just that but failed miserably in convincing anyone other
than equally-demented bigots.

How convenient. When the Orientalists critique Islam they are nothing more than
Islamophobes, Muslim-bashers and evil bigots. But when they happen to praise or agree with
Islam, well now that is a different story!

Appealing to certain Orientalists who happen to ignore or gloss over all the derogatory
and incriminating statements from Muslim sources regarding women is nothing more than the
fallacy of appealing to authority. We are sure that MENJ would discount and disagree with
the views of other Orientalists who do not conveniently overlook all the Quranic
references and Islamic narrations which present women in a very bad light. He will
obviously attack them and accuse them of distorting and twisting the references in
question, much like he has tried to do with Lazarus.

And as our documentation here has hopefully shown, if anyone miserably failed to defend
his case and is guilty of choosing specific parts of the hadith and the Quran without
bothering to look into the context, it sure isnt Lazarus.

MENJ concludes:

To recap, we quote again the missionary boast:

Please explain exactly what facts we have twisted by quoting
Muhammad's wife Ayesha

[sic]...I hope that you can
see that we are not here to mislead or to deceive.

Based on the facts we have presented above, we can easily attest that the
claim of the missionary "not here to mislead or to deceive" is certainly
most doubtful. Now that the missionary has seen for himself the facts that he had twisted,
it remains to be seen what his next excuse for this purposeful twist will be to conceal
his bigotry and extreme hatred of Islam.

And only God knows best.

RESPONSE:

Based on the facts we have presented above, we can easily attest that the claim
of our co-worker that he wasnt trying "to mislead or to deceive"
is certainly correct. Now that MENJ has been corrected and can read for himself these
other narrations attributed to Muhammad which say that women, dogs and donkeys equally
nullify prayers, he will perhaps begin to evaluate what he really wants to believe about
the sources of his faith and why. It remains to be seen what MENJs next excuse
for his unfounded slander and ad hominem against Lazarus and other Christians will be,
and what further measures he will attempt to take to cover up Islams obvious
degradation of women. Who knows, maybe in a future rebuttal he will try to better conceal
his obvious bigotry and extreme hatred of Christians, Christianity, and the true Jesus
of history who is the Christ that is accurately portrayed in Gods true Word,
the Holy Bible.

That only Yahweh, the true Triune God, knows and he knows everything best.

{1} We anticipate that MENJ will attack us for what he may perceive to be a
distorting of these hadiths regarding whether Muhammad saw his lord or not. In order to
spare him from wasting his time and ours, we include some additional narrations and
commentary from Muslim sources that acknowledge the confusion and contradiction.

One Muslim source states:

The Prophet saw Allah before death as is the doctrine of the majority of Ah al-Sunna
thus related from al-Nawawi by al-Qari. The evidence for this is the hadith of Ibn
Abbas whereby the Prophet said: "I saw my Lord" (raaytu rabbi).
Ibn Kathir cited it in his commentary on Sura al-Najm and declared its chain sound, but
considered it part of the hadith of the dream cited below. Ibn Qayyim [see excerpt below]
relates that Imam Ahmad considered such sight to be in the Prophets sleep but
remains a true sight- as the dreams of Prophets are true  and that some of the
Imams companions mistakenly attributed to him the position that the Prophet saw his
Lord "with the eyes of his head."

Al-Bayhaqi also narrated the hadith "I saw my Lord" in al-Asma wa
al-Sifat with a sound chain but with the addition: "in the form of a
curly-haired, beardless young man wearing a green robe," a condemned,
disauthenticated addition and concatenation with another hadith that refers to Gibril.
Hence al-Suyuti interpreted it either as a dream or, quoting his shaykh Ibn al-Humam, as
"the veil of form" (hijab al-sura) (Islamic Doctrines and
Beliefs: Volume 1: The Prophets in Barzakh, The Hadith of Isra and Miraj, The
Immense Merits of Al-Sham, The Vision of Allah, Al-Sayyid Muhammad Ibn Alawi
al-Maliki, translation and notes by Dr. Gibril Fouad Haddad [As-Sunna Foundation of
America 1999], pp. 137-138; bold and underline emphasis ours)

In a footnote the translator mentions another narration that says Allah appeared as a man!

and from Umm al-Tufayl by al-Tabarani (6:158 #3385). The latter chain actually
states: "I saw my Lord in the best form of a beardless young man" and was
rejected by al-Dhahabi in Tahdhib al-Mawduaat (p. 22 #22) (P. 139, fn. 257)

How interesting. Muslims forging narrations in which they have Allah appearing as a
young man!

The same source also states:

Others considered Ibn Abbas narration to refer to a vision with the eyes of
the heart, as elucidated by Ibn Abbas other narrations in Sahih Muslim and
al-Tirmidhi (hasan): "He saw him with his heart." Another narration from
Ibn Abbas in Muslim states: "He saw him with his heart twice," in his
commentary on the verses <The heart lied not (in seeing) what it saw>
(53:11), <And verily he saw him, yet another time> (53:13)

Many sound reports show that the Companions differed sharply whether the Prophet
saw Allah or not. Ibn Abbas related that he did, while Ibn Masud,
Aisha, Abu Hurayra, and Abu Dharr related reports to the contrary, stating
that the verses of Sura al-Najm and other Suras referred to Gibril, and that the Prophet
said that he saw light. (Pp. 144-145; underline emphasis ours)

Finally:

Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Maad said:

The Companions differed whether the Prophet actually saw his Lord that night [of isra
and miraj] or not. It is authentically narrated from Ibn Abbas that
the Prophet saw his Lord, and also authentically related that Ibn Abbas said:
"He saw Him with his heart." It is also authentically related from
Aisha and Ibn Masud that they denied such vision, saying that
Allahs words <And verily he saw him, yet another time, at the Lote Tree of the
Farthest Boundary> (53:13) refer to Gibril. It is also authentically related
from Abu Dharr that the latter asked the Prophet: "Did you see your Lord?" and
he replied: "[I saw] a huge light, how could I see Him?" (nurun anna arah?).
That is: light came in between myself and His sight, as stated in the wording: "I saw
light" (raaytu nuran). Uthman ibn Said al-Darimi said that the
Companions all agreed that the Prophet did not see Him. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya
 may Allah sanctify his soul!  said:

Ibn Abbass[sic] statement that "He saw Him" does not
contradict that claim, nor his statement that "He saw Him with his heart." For
it is also authentically related that the Prophet said: "I saw my Lord- glorified and
exalted is He!" However, the latter was not during the isra but in
Madina, when the Prophet was occupied and could not be with the Companions at the time of
the dawn prayer, after which he told them about his vision of Allah during his sleep at
night. It is on that evidence that Imam Ahmad based himself when he said: "Yes, he
saw him in reality (naam raahu haqqan), for the dream-vision of
Prophets are real." This is absolutely true, but Ahmad did not say that he saw Him
with the eyes of his head while awake. Whoever said that he did, is mistaken. Ahmad said
one other time: "He saw Him" and another time: "He saw Him with his
heart." These are two statements narrated from him on the issue. The third statement
whereby "He saw Him with the eyes of his head" comes from the free paraphrase of
some of his companions. Ahmads texts are present with us, and nowhere are such words
found in them. (Pp. 148-150)

The preceding citations should make it evident that the Islamic narrations are
contradicting themselves whether Muhammad saw Allah or not.